Beyond Efficacy: Policy, Delivery, and Equity Determinants of Long-Acting Monoclonal Antibody Uptake for Infant RSV Prevention—A WAidid Consensus Document
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: Long-acting monoclonal antibodies have become an important strategy for pre-venting respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants. Nirsevimab is the first product for which substantial post-licensure implementation data are available, whereas real-world evidence on clesrovimab remains limited. Although nirsevimab has demonstrated high efficacy, its uptake varies considerably across countries, healthcare systems, delivery settings, and population subgroups. This WAidid consensus document examines the policy, organizational, economic, and equity-related determinants that shape real-world implementation of long-acting monoclonal antibodies for infant RSV prevention. Methods: A structured literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for studies published between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2026. Only English-language publications were considered. The search was complemented by manual review of surveillance reports, policy documents, and public health guidance from the ECDC, UKHSA, and CDC, as well as reference lists of selected publications. Eligible sources included clinical trials, observational studies, real-world effectiveness studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, economic evaluations, guidelines, policy statements, and relevant narrative reviews. Evidence was synthesized qualitatively, with attention to policy frameworks, financing, reimbursement, delivery pathways, demographic and socioeconomic determinants, and healthcare-system factors influencing uptake. Results: Nirsevimab uptake was strongly influenced by national RSV prevention policies, particularly whether countries adopted universal infant monoclonal antibody programs, maternal RSV vaccination strategies, dual maternal–infant approaches, or targeted risk-based models. Universal, publicly funded programs inte-grated into neonatal care achieved the highest and most homogeneous coverage, especially when administration occurred before hospital discharge and was supported by registry-based recall systems for infants born outside the RSV season. In contrast, fragmented, outpatient-only, insurance-dependent, or partially reimbursed models were associated with lower, delayed, or more variable uptake. Additional determinants included product cost, reimbursement path-ways, provider practices, caregiver awareness and health literacy, insurance status, income, race and ethnicity, geographic deprivation, and access to primary pediatric care. Most available evidence comes from high-income countries, limiting generalizability to low- and middle-income settings, where RSV burden is greatest and implementation constraints may differ. Conclusion: Successful implementation of long-acting monoclonal antibodies for infant RSV prevention requires more than regulatory approval and demonstrated efficacy. Equitable up-take depends on clear national recommendations, sustainable public financing, reliable product supply, integration into neonatal and primary pediatric care, proactive identification and recall of eligible infants, and targeted strategies to reduce socioeconomic and geographic disparities. Although many determinants identified in high-income settings are likely relevant globally, their feasibility, relative importance, and impact require dedicated evaluation in low- and middle-income countries.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Beyond Efficacy: Policy, Delivery, and Equity Determinants of Long-Acting Monoclonal Antibody Uptake for Infant RSV Prevention—A WAidid Consensus Document
- Date Crossref
- 26/08/2026
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.